Prime Minister Mark Carney and other Canadian prime ministers should be required to divest their investment portfolios when they assume office, not just put them in a blind trust, the House of Commons ethics committee recommends in a new report.

In its report made public Thursday morning, the committee said putting assets in a blind trust isn’t good enough, recommending instead "that the Government of Canada amend the Conflict of Interest Act that, for the application of subsection 27(1) the prime minister, as a reporting public office holder, is fully divested from their controlled assets through sale, since placement in a blind trust does not constitute true divestment."

The committee also wants the law amended to require public disclosure of "high-level holdings categories placed in a blind trust by reporting public office holders (sector/asset class, and whether the holdings are Canadian-market concentrated)," a recommendation that could shed new light on the financial interests of a number of top officials and cabinet ministers.

top 50 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] AGM@lemmy.ca 26 points 4 days ago (2 children)

Carney also has a conflict of interest screen designed to prevent him from being involved in any decisions that could affect Brookfield Asset Management, Brookfield Corporation and Stripe.

Didn't previously know about this, but how is that even supposed to be possible? Brookfield is massive. The idea that someone could lead foreign policy on trade and economics for Canada without affecting Brookfield just doesn't make any sense. There's no way to make important decisions and act as a leader on these types of topics without having an impact on Brookfield.

[–] NSAbot@lemmy.ca 6 points 3 days ago (2 children)

Regardless, his investments are in a blind trust. He hasn’t known what specific companies he is invested in since placing them in the trust. All he knows is what the overall performance of his investments is. That’s it.

There is a lot of misinformation and half information being thrown around about how blind trusts work, but the premise is as simple as that.

[–] AGM@lemmy.ca 4 points 3 days ago (1 children)

That's a bit silly. Assuming his portfolio was well designed before it went into a trust, the asset manager is not going to entirely rebalance the portfolio. It would actually be irresponsible gor them to do so because of the size of costs it would incur to him via forcing realized taxable gains. Also, things like stock options aren't tradable assets in the same way as simple equities. It's true he won't know exactly the composition of his portfolio now, but he'll have a decent idea of it, and when he has to pay taxes on any asset sales he'll have an idea of movesthat were made. He's the opposite of a financial neophyte. And, wrt the ethics screen, it's really silly to think it's actually going to prevent him making decisions that would affect Brookfield or businesses owned by Brookfield. Brookfield is just too big with fingers in too many pies not to be affected by economic and trade policy.

You don't have to assume any negative intent or abuse to recognize that the blind trust and the ethics screen are not sufficient.

[–] NSAbot@lemmy.ca 1 points 3 days ago (1 children)

I see what you’re getting at. We should figure out how to make someone asked to do that whole for their taxes owed as a result of selling. That would be a way to avoid potential conflicts arising

[–] AGM@lemmy.ca 4 points 3 days ago

Yeah, we don't want to financially punish someone for taking up public office, but we definitely need a better mechanism for preventing conflict of interests, especially in cases where someone is stepping into office from such a significant private sector life. That's what I was getting at elsewhere in this discussion with my other comment about creating special funds for this purpose

[–] Sharkticon@lemmy.zip 1 points 3 days ago

No asset manager is going to completely up end an entire portfolio.

load more comments (1 replies)

[–] fbimitch@lemmy.ca 6 points 3 days ago

While amending the law might be a good idea, doing it by firing baseless attacks in the back of the very people at the front line is IMHO despicable. The Conservatives are playing political games while the country needs serious leadership to face a global trade war. They always used "Potential" conflict of interest in their official communication because there is no actual fraud committed, a fact that allot of people in the comments seem to ignore. Get this, PP claims "Mark Carney is doing nothing and has signed no deals since in office" and in the same breath, he's in conflict of interest... hum. Speaking with both sides of their mouth.

[–] swordgeek@lemmy.ca 5 points 4 days ago (12 children)

So the PM can't have any investments?

This seems like overkill to me. Are they supposed to take the full capital gains hit and then stuff their money in a bank account while they're PM?

What is insufficient about a blind trust?

[–] SaveTheTuaHawk@lemmy.ca 17 points 4 days ago (2 children)

What is insufficient about a blind trust?

A very naive question. Carney knows exactly what his investments are, and how his trust would be impacted by his policies in the longer term, post political career. Data centers? Ottawa spending on AI initiatives? Brookfield projects, what a coincidence.

A better question is why would a very wealthy man bother to become a civil servant?

Are they supposed to take the full capital gains hit and then stuff their money in a bank account while they’re PM?

Oh no, what precedent would a Prime Minister set for paying taxes? "Full capital gains hit" = half the income tax rate and a >$1M lifetime exemption.

People in this country just want a corrupt government, small wonder we have one.

[–] NSAbot@lemmy.ca 4 points 4 days ago (7 children)

No - Carney knows exactly what his investments were when they entered the blind trust. He does not know what they are now.

load more comments (7 replies)

load more comments (1 replies)

[–] chemical_cutthroat@lemmy.world 14 points 4 days ago (1 children)

They could just not be PM.

[–] Levi@lemmy.ca 24 points 4 days ago (13 children)

Exactly. If their money is more important than Canadian interests I'd rather them not be PM. (or even a politician)

load more comments (13 replies)

[–] AGM@lemmy.ca 11 points 4 days ago (1 children)

It would be interesting to explore something like requiring a PM to liquidate assets they hold beyond things like a primary residence but making it free of any capital gains tax, then have a separate fund that tracks a basket of assets designed to be representative of the wealth and wellbeing of Canadians broadly but having an adjustable RoR based on broad measures of wellbeing. Could even make that available to all MPs and requiring ten years before divestment or something.

Totally just spitballing, but interesting to think of different ways of aligning incentives.

[–] SreudianFlip@sh.itjust.works 10 points 4 days ago (2 children)

This is functional reform in a capitalist representative democracy. So it will never happen! I expect guillotines before accountability.

load more comments (2 replies)

[–] HellsBelle@sh.itjust.works 10 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (1 children)

It's insuffient because ...

" ... the prime minister, as a reporting public office holder, is fully divested from their controlled assets through sale, since placement in a blind trust does not constitute true divestment."

The committe is also advising revisions that will affect other officials and cabinet ministers ...

The committee also wants the law amended to require public disclosure of "high-level holdings categories placed in a blind trust by reporting public office holders (sector/asset class, and whether the holdings are Canadian-market concentrated)," a recommendation that could shed new light on the financial interests of a number of top officials and cabinet ministers.

It's all in the very short article link.

[–] swordgeek@lemmy.ca 2 points 3 days ago

Well that's something of a circular argument.

It's absolutely true that placing investments in a blind trust isn't divestment - but I didn't really see why they considered full divestment (rather than a blind trust) necessary in the first place. The article made is sound like the committee just declared that as their goal.

Regardless, the public disclosure on a broader scale of politicians is a great idea. We deserve to see that.

[–] DarkSirrush@piefed.ca 4 points 4 days ago (1 children)

Yes, why the fuck does a Prime Minister need additional investments while in office?

Its not like they will ever hurt for money again after they leave the position.

[–] OrteilGenou@lemmy.world 7 points 4 days ago (2 children)

If you want successful people to hold office, you can't make them divest their portfolios and take capital gains tax hits that could ostensibly cost them more than their salary and pension combined.

I know I know "boo hoo rich people" but if you think that Mark Carney is a good PM, why would you then set up a pre-requisite that repels people like him from even considering taking the position?

[–] Phil_in_here@lemmy.ca 5 points 3 days ago (11 children)

I don't want "successful" people in office!

I want someone who has community building experience. Someone with non-profit experience. Someone with the interest of people not someone that has demonstrated a thorough understanding of how to acquire personal wealth.

We have financial and economic specialists to advise the PM, but we act like that's the only fucking metric we can weigh our worth on.

I want a PM that is grateful for the opportunity to help Canadians and is humbled by the $400 000 salary as compensation, not someone that sees it as a small asset to their inflating portfolio.

[–] thisorthatorwhatever@lemmy.world 2 points 3 days ago (2 children)

Can we go higher on the salary, sure. Let's make it $1milion a year.

But, who do we want running the country? I'd like someone with the guts to raise the salary, but also say that they'll willingly dis-invest and put their assets in a blind trust.

[–] NSAbot@lemmy.ca 4 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)

Carney’s assets are in a blind trust. He has zero visibility into what investments he holds. All he knows is the overall performance of the total.

load more comments (1 replies)

load more comments (10 replies)

[–] Tlaloc_Temporal@lemmy.ca 3 points 3 days ago (1 children)

If the loss of assets is enough to prevent you from considering the position, I don't want you in that position. The PM is supposed to make decisions good for Canada, not their assets in particular.

load more comments (1 replies)

[–] ILikeBoobies@lemmy.ca 5 points 4 days ago

Well their home is provided so I suppose they really have no need for assets while in power.

load more comments (6 replies)

load more comments